AF-S 35mm F1.8G vs AF-S 40mm Micro F2.8G

[ZerocoolAstra]

Thanks everyone, I'm confused on other non DX format lens. I thot my DX format camera needs a DX lens?

FX lenses can also use on DX camera, while DX lenses when use with a FX camera will have a capping of 5mb of image size if i'm not wrong.

The DX lens produces a smaller Image Circle compared with an FX lens. This allows the lens to be smaller, lighter, and (hopefully) cheaper.
FX lenses can be mounted and used on DX cameras, no problem.
When you mount a DX lens on an FX camera, the camera auto-defaults to DX mode, which uses the central part of the FX sensor only (approx 5MP for Nikon D700/D3/D3S). You can force the camera to FX mode, in which case you'll most likely see the edges of the image circle.

 

[myphotoworkz]

The DX lens produces a smaller Image Circle compared with an FX lens. This allows the lens to be smaller, lighter, and (hopefully) cheaper.
FX lenses can be mounted and used on DX cameras, no problem.
When you mount a DX lens on an FX camera, the camera auto-defaults to DX mode, which uses the central part of the FX sensor only (approx 5MP for Nikon D700/D3/D3S). You can force the camera to FX mode, in which case you'll most likely see the edges of the image circle.

Ok thanks. So if I fixed a AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G (non-DX) onto my D3100 then can I say it works well like a 35mm but with 50mm x 1.5?

 

[ziploc]

Ok thanks. So if I fixed a AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G (non-DX) onto my D3100 then can I say it works well like a 35mm but with 50mm x 1.5?

Eh no. With a 50mm lens you get 50x1.5 and ends up with 75mm field of view.

Perhaps an easier way to understand:

When used on DX body, it doesn't matter the lens is FX or DX, you'll need to apply the 1.5x multiplier to the focal length. The only difference is that DX body can use both FX and DX lenses in DX mode only, while FX camera can use both FX and DX lenses in both FX and DX mode, except if you force DX lenses to work in FX mode, you get vignetting at the wide end.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

Ok thanks. So if I fixed a AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G (non-DX) onto my D3100 then can I say it works well like a 35mm but with 50mm x 1.5?

The crop factor multiplier of 1.5x comes into play because of the sensor (more specifically the size of the sensor) on your camera, and has nothing to do with the lens.

The common 'baseline' that all lenses refer to is the 35mm (film) format, when stating their focal lengths. This is true even for lenses marked 'DX' (eg. 35mm f/1.8DX).
As I said earlier, the difference between a DX and non-DX lens is the size of the image circle.

Maybe the following example will make it clearer:
If you mount
1) AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX
or
2) AF 35mm f/2 D (FX lens)
onto your D3100, the view that you get would be practically the same. No difference whatsoever.

Let's ignore the FX or film cameras for now, in order not to be more confusing

 

[myphotoworkz]

Eh no. With a 50mm lens you get 50x1.5 and ends up with 75mm field of view.

Perhaps an easier way to understand:

When used on DX body, it doesn't matter the lens is FX or DX, you'll need to apply the 1.5x multiplier to the focal length. The only difference is that DX body can use both FX and DX lenses in DX mode only, while FX camera can use both FX and DX lenses in both FX and DX mode, except if you force DX lenses to work in FX mode, you get vignetting at the wide end.

Ok, I understand thanks....as long as the lens has an autofocus motor, it will work on my D3100 be it DX or FX

 

[ziploc]

Ok, I understand thanks....as long as the lens has an autofocus motor, it will work on my D3100 be it DX or FX

Ah ok, I misunderstood your previous question. You're asking whether AFS lenses will work on your D3100, and yes they will autofocus. Non AFS lenses (e.g. AF 50/1.8D) will work as well, but without the autofocus (you'll need to focus manually).

 

[myphotoworkz]

Ah ok, I misunderstood your previous question. You're asking whether AFS lenses will work on your D3100, and yes they will autofocus. Non AFS lenses (e.g. AF 50/1.8D) will work as well, but without the autofocus (you'll need to focus manually).

Ok thanks, I got it.....ordering 35mm from USA and ask my colleague to bring over.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

Ok thanks, I got it.....ordering 35mm from USA and ask my colleague to bring over.

Is it really worth all that effort? I thought there wasn't a big price difference.

 

[Cowseye]

If I'm not wrong. 35mm F/1.8 is only $190 USD, with exchange rate and price diff, it might be a $100 savings.

 

[myphotoworkz]

If I'm not wrong. 35mm F/1.8 is only $190 USD, with exchange rate and price diff, it might be a $100 savings.

Ya that's correct as I checked the price is around S$350 here and USA is selling USD190 with free delivery to my colleague office which I do not need to bother my colleague too much....saving $100 is quite alright.

 

[Cowseye]

Just need to remind ur friend to ensure there are 2 warranty certificates included. One for US (5 yrs I think), the other for international (1yr)

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

If I'm not wrong. 35mm F/1.8 is only $190 USD, with exchange rate and price diff, it might be a $100 savings.

Ya that's correct as I checked the price is around S$350 here and USA is selling USD190 with free delivery to my colleague office which I do not need to bother my colleague too much....saving $100 is quite alright.

sounds attractive then :thumbsup:

 

[jas1984]

Ya that's correct as I checked the price is around S$350 here and USA is selling USD190 with free delivery to my colleague office which I do not need to bother my colleague too much....saving $100 is quite alright.

Smart move Bro..

 

[winstonoyy]

Hi. Sorry to revive this old thread, but I was considering using a AFS 35mm f1.8G until I realise the price of the AFS 40mm f2.8 micro is comparable. Researching a bit on the 40mm shows this:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/06/09/long-term-review-nikon-40mm-f2-8g-af-s-dx-micro-nikkor/

...which got me thinking about the possibility of using the 40mm as a food lens.

My current set up is an additional AF 50mm f1.4D on top of my kit lens. The fast prime is what I'm primarily using now, day or night. However, I often faced 2 issues:
1. When taking pictures of food, the 50mm needs more FD than I can afford at the dining table;
2. The 50mm has a tight 75mm FOV on my D90, while good for head portraits it appears to be rather restrictive.

I like the large aperture that the prime offers, hence I've no intention of giving it up. I wonder if the 35mm or 40mm prime will serve me better. So my first query would be: would the 35mm need as much FD as my 50mm? If so, then the resulting 52.5mm would be less useful to me than my current set up. I understand that the 35mm would be a good walkabout lens due to it's normal FL on DX, and it's f1.8 aperture makes it useful for low light shots too. So my second query to those who have used both lenses: does the 40mm give you more convenience compared to 35mm?

I note also that 40mm would be closer to 50mm than likewise for 35mm. So maybe FX users can advise if they can be comfortable with the AF 60mm f2.8 micro without any other lenses for street photog? I'm not going hardcore into macro, more of taking pictures of bakes and non-animate objects. I read that usually, people recommend using 35mm and 50mm for cheap complements as they are not as close. Would you recommend likewise for 40mm and 50mm?

As a last note, i may consider selling my kit lens but on second thoughts, it's a pretty good wide and tele lens to use in good light. Any comments?

 

[rain5533]

Hi. Sorry to revive this old thread, but I was considering using a AFS 35mm f1.8G until I realise the price of the AFS 40mm f2.8 micro is comparable. Researching a bit on the 40mm shows this:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/06/09/long-term-review-nikon-40mm-f2-8g-af-s-dx-micro-nikkor/

...which got me thinking about the possibility of using the 40mm as a food lens.

My current set up is an additional AF 50mm f1.4D on top of my kit lens. The fast prime is what I'm primarily using now, day or night. However, I often faced 2 issues:
1. When taking pictures of food, the 50mm needs more FD than I can afford at the dining table;
2. The 50mm has a tight 75mm FOV on my D90, while good for head portraits it appears to be rather restrictive.

I like the large aperture that the prime offers, hence I've no intention of giving it up. I wonder if the 35mm or 40mm prime will serve me better. So my first query would be: would the 35mm need as much FD as my 50mm? If so, then the resulting 52.5mm would be less useful to me than my current set up. I understand that the 35mm would be a good walkabout lens due to it's normal FL on DX, and it's f1.8 aperture makes it useful for low light shots too. So my second query to those who have used both lenses: does the 40mm give you more convenience compared to 35mm?

I note also that 40mm would be closer to 50mm than likewise for 35mm. So maybe FX users can advise if they can be comfortable with the AF 60mm f2.8 micro without any other lenses for street photog? I'm not going hardcore into macro, more of taking pictures of bakes and non-animate objects. I read that usually, people recommend using 35mm and 50mm for cheap complements as they are not as close. Would you recommend likewise for 40mm and 50mm?

As a last note, i may consider selling my kit lens but on second thoughts, it's a pretty good wide and tele lens to use in good light. Any comments?

Hi, maybe you can view my review 1st and consider which one to go..

http://vintagephotograph.weebly.com/prime-lens-comparison.html

 

[Dav-C]

So you have a kit zoom lens 18-105. Then you bought 50mm and 35mm. You find 50mm on DX restrictive? Now want to sell 35mm and buy a 40mm macro?

If you frequently shoot macro type close up of food, then get a macro lens. No need to think too much.

 

[winstonoyy]

So you have a kit zoom lens 18-105. Then you bought 50mm and 35mm. You find 50mm on DX restrictive? Now want to sell 35mm and buy a 40mm macro?

If you frequently shoot macro type close up of food, then get a macro lens. No need to think too much.

I don't have a 35mm. I am considering getting a 35mm or 40mm, cos I'm starting to find 50mm restrictive on FOV for DX. I guess you misread my post.

 

[Dav-C]

I don't have a 35mm. I am considering getting a 35mm or 40mm, cos I'm starting to find 50mm restrictive on FOV for DX. I guess you misread my post.

I see.

50mm on DX is quite nice especially f1.4.

I would say get the macro because you can get more interesting perspective.

 

[daredevil123]

I don't have a 35mm. I am considering getting a 35mm or 40mm, cos I'm starting to find 50mm restrictive on FOV for DX. I guess you misread my post.

35 is better on dx.

If you shoot macro a lot, get a macro lens. But if you only shoot macro once ina while, get the 35.

Keep your 50mm. It is a great portrait lens, and with extension tubes, also make a good macro setup. And when reversed is an awesome macro setup.

 

[winstonoyy]

35 is better on dx.

If you shoot macro a lot, get a macro lens. But if you only shoot macro once ina while, get the 35.

Keep your 50mm. It is a great portrait lens, and with extension tubes, also make a good macro setup. And when reversed is an awesome macro setup.

I agree that using extension tubes on the 35 or 50 can be great for macro. But on the issue of convenience, would you take food photos with extension tubes? Or would you take the photos standing up at the table, since the FL would be very long? Can't help feeling weird, but agree that 35mm is a good normal prime for walkabout.

What do people usually use the 40mm for?